NASA Warned Over Shuttle Safety Modelling

Status
Not open for further replies.
Z

zavvy

Guest
<b>NASA Warned Over Shuttle Safety Modelling</b><br /><br />LINK<br /><br />NASA should not rely on its current computer models to clear the next shuttle for launch, according to an oversight panel. However, the panel still expect NASA to return to flight in May or June 2005, as planned.<br /><br />The space agency has focused its return-to-flight efforts on reducing the amount and size of foam insulation that can break away from a shuttle's external fuel tank. A briefcase-sized chunk of foam doomed the shuttle Columbia when it punched a hole in the leading edge of its left wing just after launch in January 2003.<br /><br />Since the disaster, the agency has been conducting tests to find out why the foam comes off the tank, how the foam flies through the air and the minimum energy it must have to damage the shuttle's "thermal protection system", including the reinforced carbon panels covering the wings' leading edges.<br /><br />NASA has used that minimum energy to model the maximum speeds that particles of various sizes could reach during a flight. Its estimate for the mass of the smallest piece of breakaway foam that could seriously damage the shuttle ranges from 10.5 grams at the top of the external tank to 34.0 g nearer the bottom. The estimate is lighter at the top because foam there has farther to fall to the shuttle wing, meaning it has a greater impact velocity.<br /><br />"Faulty assumptions"<br />But the current models are incomplete and "cannot be used to precisely determine 'allowable' debris", writes the independent Return to Flight Task Group in an interim report released on Friday. The 26-member panel is charged with assessing whether NASA has implemented 15 recommendations made by the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB).<br /><br />The group says the Columbia disaster was caused by NASA making the "faulty assumption" that foam could not damage the shuttle's wings. Now, the group w
 
N

no_way

Guest
<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>Nonetheless, eight of the 15 CAIB recommendations remain "open"<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewnews.html?id=915<br /><blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>O'Keefe made a point of speaking in short, declarative sentences when he brought up the issue of NASA's compliance with the CAIB's recommendations, stating there would "be no discussion" and that all recommendations would be implemented "to the letter."<br /><p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />Awfully short time left to implement all the remaining letters, dont you think ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts